Medical Meetings recently published its "2009 Annual Physicians' CME Preferences Survey." Keep in mind that this was a very small sample of physicians. n = 127.
Physicians were given a modest incentive of $1 to complete the survey.
You may be surprised by some of the results, but allow me to highlight some topics that impressed me (both in good and bad ways). Below, you'll see some snippets that focus on the following topics: different types of CME providers, PI (Performance Improvement) CME, and the value of CME. (MECC = Medical Education and Communication Company):
The older folks leaned slightly toward perceiving no variance in CME
quality, with 30 percent of those older than 55 not noticing a
difference in quality between offerings by a MECC, an academic
institution, a hospital, a medical society, or other type of provider.
Of those younger than 45, just 22 percent perceived no variance, while
55 percent said that quality varied either somewhat or significantly
among provider types.
Among those who did have knowledge of PI CME, only a few said that
they already were participating. PI CME is “usually time-consuming and
not very beneficial,” commented one respondent, while another said,
“Performance improvement programs are worthless.” Other than lack of
knowledge and a negative outlook toward PI CME, the main barrier people
noted was, as one said, “time, time, and time.” Several also noted that
the clerical and administrative work PI CME may entail can be a barrier,
as can a dearth of access to electronic medical records and technical
support that could enable the doc to efficiently track the data.
Despite the grumbling about the time CME takes away from their
practices and the costs involved, an overwhelming 93 percent of
physicians said that CME activities are either somewhat (57 percent) or
extremely (36 percent) effective in meeting their needs. Six percent
said they were only slightly effective, and 1 percent said they were not
at all effective. Some complained that the CME activities they
participated in tended not to cover cutting-edge research. Others stated
they were often irrelevant to their practices, or primarily entailed
reviewing basic science rather than key clinical information.
To read the entire story on Medical Meetings,
click here.
Many of us have made contacts in the world of social media. We've seen photos of people on Twitter and Facebook. We've even connected on the phone. However, nothing replaces a face-to-face meeting and I'm looking forward to connecting with some people at HIMSS this year. Over the past 12 months, I've made many connections in the world of health IT and I'm eager to put a real face to these Twitter user names.
